The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: raymundoko

Well that is certainly true, but it isn't stopping those people from saying that that is what the bible is saying. If we just accept the bible as mythology and not worry about what it says then it becomes easier to read and understand. If you look at it as a product of its times then its impact makes more sense. Trying to alter the bible's message without changing any of the words within it every time science updates just makes it too vague.

a reply to: raymundoko

You can't really interpret it to say whatever you want. That is a fallacy of the opposing view.

Can you elaborate on that. If I am interpreting you correctly I must say that hasn't been my experience in threads for the past decade on ATS.

For instance in another thread I am currently discussing how Genesis states the Sun and all stars was made on Day 4. Which it does. Yet the religious person I am debating is trying to assert one should interpret Genesis 1:1 'Earth and the Heavens' as the physical totality of existence' and thus including stars right from the onset. Obviously we are interpreting that differently.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I would disagree with you and agree with them. Every where else "heavens" is mentioned refers to the sky, including the stars. (For example Abraham was told to look to count the stars in the heavens)

I would suggest you WANT it to be interpreted your way as that would invalidate the bible since it disagrees with what we observe.

I will find the thread and join it. No need to derail this thread.

a reply to: raymundoko

Alright if you agree with him. Can you give me then an explanation for why Genesis explicitly says the Sun and all stars are made on Day 4? Why it specifically says that's the Day sunlight reaches the Earth? What is the purpose of Genesis saying this specifically occurs on Day 4 if it was always intended to be interpreted as existing from the onset?

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

I don't think it's derailing. The topic is about The Bible and cosmology after all.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The bible is written from the point of view of the earth/men. The creation would also be from the point of view of the earth. Day 4 is simply when the atmosphere had thinned enough to clearly see the sun, moon and stars. The earth already had diffused light up to that point as it is mentioned on the first day.

Diffused light would have been an ideal condition for evolving plant life.

originally posted by: raymundoko

The bible is written from the point of view of the earth/men

lol!

Indeed. It is written by men and their viewpoint from Earth.

Diffused light would have been an ideal condition for evolving plant life.

No. There is no diffused light..

Genesis explicitly says no light reaches Earth until day four.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The bible is written from the point of view of the earth/men. The creation would also be from the point of view of the earth. Day 4 is simply when the atmosphere had thinned enough to clearly see the sun, moon and stars. The earth already had diffused light up to that point as it is mentioned on the first day.

Diffused light would have been an ideal condition for evolving plant life.

I think your right. If you turn the bible upside down. Then close one eye and squint the other one... While drunk, it lines up perfectly with what science has proven!


Instead of trying to shove a round peg in a square hole, why not just not take a literalist view?? If it's a metaphor then it leaves room for interpretation. If it's the divinely inspired literal truth, then all of science is in a big conspiracy to discredit Jesus!! Lol

The formless emptiness plus light equals what there is. The illusion is that there is more than this.
God is the formless emptiness and the light is the son of God.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The formless emptiness plus light equals what there is

Come now..

Does that make any sense to you?

It doesn't to me.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Genesis does not say no light reaches the earth. You are inferring that because it supports your point of view. This is the same issue dogmatic types suffer from. There has to be light/dark for there to be a day/night, and light already existed as clearly indicated earlier in the chapter. The lights were now markers for day and night, meaning they were now fully visible.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Wtf?

a reply to: Entreri06

You're adorable. I am actually doing the opposite of trying to force any types of pegs in any types of holes. If the peg doesn't fit, you have the wrong peg for the wrong hole.

a reply to: raymundoko

Not really. You are making a multitude of assumptions about what was there originally, and dust clearing so that the light can get through, just to support YOUR interpretation of genesis. There are 50+ versions of Christianity out there, so yes, it very much is related to how each one interprets the bible and which version of it they follow.

Genesis 14 says god created the stars (Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate day from night and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times...) and the sun + moon ("God made two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night"). This clearly refers to the sun, moon and stars being created after plant life, which is impossible because plants need sunlight to live. It says nothing about dust clearing or other lights, and allowing the light to reach earth, and even if that's the case the plants would all still die from lack of sunlight. You added that "dust clearing" bit in to suggest your interpretation of the story is valid, despite it saying right there in the text "God made". This completely justifies Lucid's points about how interpretation allows for people to think it means anything they want. You just did exactly that to force the meaning to what you want.

a reply to: Barcs

Nope, I already responded to that. And I base the idea of a thick atmosphere with diffused light on my advanced degree in Atmospheric Physics and what we assume a young planets atmosphere may look like.

a reply to: raymundoko

I read your earlier response. The problem is that there is no sun and no other natural lights in the universe are capable of keeping plants on earth alive, therefor no light source strong enough to diffuse in the first place. Are you next going to invoke some other magical light source that was there when the planet was created but is gone now? Night and day have nothing to do with the sun being there and the earth revolving around it?

If you'd rather just appeal to magic, call it a metaphor, or take it on faith and god's power alone, then I have no problem with that. The problem is cherry picking your evidence to justify your conclusion that you already have set in stone, rather than looking at all evidence and making a conclusion from it. Don't try rectify it scientifically, it's faith based belief system and in my opinion that's not what the story was meant for. People had a very primitive understanding of the earth at the time Genesis was written.

At least the fact that you are going through such lengths to justify the impossible shows that you are beginning to question your faith, which is a good thing. Keep seeking and you shall find.

a reply to: Barcs

No, you're the one who is already predisposed to your point of view. You want it to be true so you reject alternatives. Light was there from day 1. No lengths needed.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

No, you're the one who is already predisposed to your point of view. You want it to be true so you reject alternatives. Light was there from day 1. No lengths needed.

LOL

There HAD to be light from the beginning, so that GOD could see what he was doing! DUH!

HAHA

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Barcs

No, you're the one who is already predisposed to your point of view. You want it to be true so you reject alternatives. Light was there from day 1. No lengths needed.

What exactly do I want to be true? I follow the science, I don't cherry pick it. You are inserting your own beliefs into the scriptures to justify something that was written thousands of years ago by folks with a primitive understanding of the world. It was then translated from another language, and split into dozens of interpretations and versions. Take the stories for their meanings and the lessons they teach. They aren't meant to be scientifically accurate.

You can't rectify your interpretation of genesis with science by inventing things that go against science to make it work. Don't you see the contradiction in this? You had to insert an external unknown light that no longer exists, plus a cloudy atmosphere at the time plants arose, both of which contradict science. It is an inaccurate account, you are trying to justify something that doesn't need to be justified.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: cooperton

How did this OP somehow connect something as simple as a god speaking and creating light to something as complex as the big bang? We are left with the conclusion that confirmation bias.

The Genesis creation myth is very similar to that of the Babylonian creation myth. I guess the Babylonian religion was divinely inspired?

Your argument is extremely weak, no offense. A new theory says that the universe is eternal, having no beginning or end. What does that say about your creation story?

...Or the Babylonian myth borrowed from earlier accounts (like the Genesis account).

a reply to: cooperton

I don't think there is much similarity between a big-bang singularity and God creating light.

The big bang may well have been entirely dark, in optical frequencies, who knows?